The Terai Human Rights Defenders Alliance (THRDA) has informed the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) that police officers attached with Area Police Office Chapiya of Rupandehi District kept Kisalawati Harijan (37), resident of Manpakadi Village Development Committee (VDC) under illegal detention on 3 May 2016, and tortured her for an hour. The police torture was meted out in front of her 12-year-old son, who was looking inside through a window and was begging the police not to beat his mother. That the police resort to torture in Nepal to handle even a simple dispute, showcases the nature of the institution, and screams for institutional transformation.

CASE DETAILS: The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information that police officers attached with Area Police Office Chapiya of Rupandehi District kept 37-year-old Kisalawati Harijan, a Dalit resident of Manpakadi VDC under illegal detention on 3 May 2016, and tortured her for an hour. The police tortured her with the intent to settle a dispute between neighbors. On 29-30 April 2016, Shiva Shankar Harijan, husband of Kisalawati Harijan, pawned a 4 kattha parcel of land to Rajaram Yadav for Nepal Rupees 25,000 and went to Naugadh in India with the money. He came back to Nepal after 2-3 days and has been staying at this relatives’ place in Gonaha VDC. He met Shanti Baniya at Bethari Market, on 1 May 2016. Shanti is his neighbor, who lives 200 feet away from his house. Shiva Shankar handed over Rupees 2,000 to Shanti and asked her to give it to his wife once she returns home from the market. The same evening, Shanti Baniya went to meet Kisalawati and informed her that she met her husband at the market where he gave her Rupees 2000 to hand over to her. However, Shanti mentioned that she spent Rupees 1000 for her own expenses, and tried to hand over Rupees 1,000 to Kisalawati, promising to return Rupees 1,000 later. Kisalawati became angry, as her husband had pawned their land without her consent, and left the house taking all the money. She rejected the offer of Rupees 1,000 and told Shanti to return the money to her husband instead. After that Shanti left taking the money with her. The next day, at around noon, Kisalawati sent her 12-year-old son Sunil Harijan to fetch the money. When Sunil met Shanti, she informed the child that his father had taken Rupees 1,000 from her a year ago, and had also bought items and drank alcohol amounting to another NRs. 1000. She refused to give the money, telling the boy that all is even now. She told Sunil to tell this to his mother. Once her son relayed the message, Kisalawati went to Shanti’s house and asked her about the money, as Shanti had even refused to give Rupees 1000 that she had been prepared to hand over a day ago. They had a verbal argument, but Shanti recorded what Kisalawati said through a mobile phone (she didn’t record her diatribe). At around 5 p.m., Shanti called the police complaining that Kisalawati had scolded her using bad words. Three police officers, including a lady police officer, attached to Area Police Office Chapiya arrived at 6 p.m., and arrested both Kisalawati and Shanti, and took them to the Police Station. The police had a minor discussion with them and released them at around 7:30 p.m. They were asked to visit the Police Station at 10 a.m. the next day. The next day, 3 May 2016, Police Inspector Bhojraj Panday directed Police Constable Shila Karki to inquire into the dispute. Constable Karki took them into a room and asked for details about the incident. Both of them narrated their stories. After listening to them, Constable Karki pointed out that it was Kisalawati’s mistake, and so Kisalawati should hold Shanti’s legs and begin apologizing. Constable Karki told her to do this 5-6 times. But when Kisalawati refused to do so, the Police Inspector and other unidentified officers signaled to Constable Karki. Upon receiving the signal, the Constable used a 2.5 feet long black pipe and hit Kisalawati on the palm 10-12 times and the reverse side 10-12 times. Not only this, Kisalawati was beaten on her thighs, knees, and hips, including her private parts. For around 20 minutes more, she was kicked and punched all over her body. The Police Constable also used foul words. They stopped the torture when Kisalawati relented and asked for forgiveness touching Shanti’s feet. Kisalawati’s 12-year-old son witnessed this torture through a window. He cried and begged the police not to hit his mother. Kisalawati was even threatened – that she would be sent to the District Police, where she would receive more beatings. She was also threatened with more mental torture. The police released her at 5 p.m. after making her sign a blank paper. The police threatened her not to speak about the torture outside the Station, or she would have to face the consequences. Kisalawati has undergone medical assessment and secured a medical report from the District Bhim Hospital Bhairahawa. A case is being filed against the police officers at the District Court Rupandehi. The victim Kisalawati lost her money and also received police torture. Instead of settling the dispute in a proper manner, the police chose to torture Kisalawati and forced her to degrade herself and hold her neighbor’s legs and beg for mercy. This incident is another example of a brutal practice prevalent within the police force in Nepal, a country where the police are guided by ancient methods of crime control, primitive methods involving violence and shame.

SUGGESTED ACTION: The senior police authorities must immediately suspend the alleged police officers involved, and initiate action against them after due process of investigation into police torture. The victim should receive proper medical treatment and must be provided compensation as per the Torture Compensation Act (TCA) 1996. Please write letters to the following authorities calling on them to take necessary action against the police officers involved in this case. The AHRC is writing a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, for its intervention into this matter.